Cannabis & Driving
Discussion
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?Brink said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?
Brink said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?Do you really think that anyone who has smoked it is in a constant state of drug induced comatose, having lost all normal reasoning power?
cashmax said:
Brink said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?Do you really think that anyone who has smoked it is in a constant state of drug induced comatose, having lost all normal reasoning power?
NS66 said:
cashmax said:
Brink said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?Do you really think that anyone who has smoked it is in a constant state of drug induced comatose, having lost all normal reasoning power?
I guess it isn't drugs that make people stupid, necessarily, is it? You've managed it without you nor your friends consuming any. Quite the achievement. Well done.
What an ignorant thing to say.
Where do you stand on alcohol consumption, out of interest?
The thing is, those of who are not pot-heads, tend not to associate with those who are.
Despite attempts by pot-heads to suggest they are the majority, they are not. And non-pot-heads don’t particularly like associating with them.
I’m sure there are exceptions as with most things.
And piss-heads are much the same quite honestly. Can’t be doing with them. I’m generally against banning things so I’m not in favour of banning alcohol, indeed I wouldn’t really care if we legalise cannabis, I just don’t want to associate with pot-heads or piss-heads.
And, just as with piss-heads, please do not tell me being a pot-head makes you a better driver. It doesn’t. Keep your car away from me please when you’re stoned.
Despite attempts by pot-heads to suggest they are the majority, they are not. And non-pot-heads don’t particularly like associating with them.
I’m sure there are exceptions as with most things.
And piss-heads are much the same quite honestly. Can’t be doing with them. I’m generally against banning things so I’m not in favour of banning alcohol, indeed I wouldn’t really care if we legalise cannabis, I just don’t want to associate with pot-heads or piss-heads.
And, just as with piss-heads, please do not tell me being a pot-head makes you a better driver. It doesn’t. Keep your car away from me please when you’re stoned.
zarjaz1991 said:
The thing is, those of who are not pot-heads, tend not to associate with those who are.
Despite attempts by pot-heads to suggest they are the majority, they are not. And non-pot-heads don’t particularly like associating with them.
I’m sure there are exceptions as with most things.
And piss-heads are much the same quite honestly. Can’t be doing with them. I’m generally against banning things so I’m not in favour of banning alcohol, indeed I wouldn’t really care if we legalise cannabis, I just don’t want to associate with pot-heads or piss-heads.
And, just as with piss-heads, please do not tell me being a pot-head makes you a better driver. It doesn’t. Keep your car away from me please when you’re stoned.
Absolutely nobody is saying they drive better when they're stoned. The latter few pages of this discussion have been about blood levels of THC, trying to understand why the government went against their own drug advisory panel when decided to put the legal limit of blood-THC at 2ug per litre when their panel advised it be 5ug per litre, and how long impairment lasts from both anecdotal experience, but also what scientific papers have concluded.Despite attempts by pot-heads to suggest they are the majority, they are not. And non-pot-heads don’t particularly like associating with them.
I’m sure there are exceptions as with most things.
And piss-heads are much the same quite honestly. Can’t be doing with them. I’m generally against banning things so I’m not in favour of banning alcohol, indeed I wouldn’t really care if we legalise cannabis, I just don’t want to associate with pot-heads or piss-heads.
And, just as with piss-heads, please do not tell me being a pot-head makes you a better driver. It doesn’t. Keep your car away from me please when you’re stoned.
As we can see from the current Covid enquiry, our government doesn't give a toss about harms to others, nor following the science and medical advice which is based on facts.
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Absolutely nobody is saying they drive better when they're stoned. The latter few pages of this discussion have been about blood levels of THC, trying to understand why the government went against their own drug advisory panel when decided to put the legal limit of blood-THC at 2ug per litre when their panel advised it be 5ug per litre, and how long impairment lasts from both anecdotal experience, but also what scientific papers have concluded.
As we can see from the current Covid enquiry, our government doesn't give a toss about harms to others, nor following the science and medical advice which is based on facts.
Like the "fact" that 500,000 people would die without lockdown? A purveyor of "the science" has since admitted he made that up. As we can see from the current Covid enquiry, our government doesn't give a toss about harms to others, nor following the science and medical advice which is based on facts.
You're arguing that the limit is too low - too low for a substance that it is an offence to even possess in the first place. Not content with wanting to possess an illegal substance, you want to be allowed to drive with more of it in your system because you assert it doesn't impair people as much as the present limit suggests. I think we can all agree that we definitely need more people driving with higher levels of illegal substances in their system. That's guaranteed to make the roads safer. Oh and btw I want to be able to drive up the M40 at 90 mph with impunity because my driving record says I'm much better at it than most people.
siremoon said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Absolutely nobody is saying they drive better when they're stoned. The latter few pages of this discussion have been about blood levels of THC, trying to understand why the government went against their own drug advisory panel when decided to put the legal limit of blood-THC at 2ug per litre when their panel advised it be 5ug per litre, and how long impairment lasts from both anecdotal experience, but also what scientific papers have concluded.
As we can see from the current Covid enquiry, our government doesn't give a toss about harms to others, nor following the science and medical advice which is based on facts.
Like the "fact" that 500,000 people would die without lockdown? A purveyor of "the science" has since admitted he made that up. As we can see from the current Covid enquiry, our government doesn't give a toss about harms to others, nor following the science and medical advice which is based on facts.
You're arguing that the limit is too low - too low for a substance that it is an offence to even possess in the first place. Not content with wanting to possess an illegal substance, you want to be allowed to drive with more of it in your system because you assert it doesn't impair people as much as the present limit suggests. I think we can all agree that we definitely need more people driving with higher levels of illegal substances in their system. That's guaranteed to make the roads safer. Oh and btw I want to be able to drive up the M40 at 90 mph with impunity because my driving record says I'm much better at it than most people.
The limit is 2ug per litre of blood. The government's own drug advisory board recommended 5ug per litre of blood. Every scientific paper referenced in the last page or so has shown when consuming cannabis via vaporiser or smoked, the effects of impairment are back to baseline between 4-6 hours post-consumption. If you consume it, then drive 10+ hours later, you are not impaired. I am asserting that the current limit does not follow the scientific conclusions in recent study results. Are you following?
Consuming it via edibles is harder to measure, but we know the effects of edibles are around 8-10 hours, so you'd likely be impaired if you were to drive - which I am NOT advocating for.
Secondly, it is not an illegal substance if it is prescribed - which it is to me. And I am certainly not asserting that we need more people driving under the influence of any psychoactive substance - illegal or not.
Quite how you've reached the conclusions you have, is quite interesting. This thread has become an interesting and open discussion - specifically on cannabis and driving - yet all you have to offer is 'DRUGS ARE BAD, MMMMKAY!'.
So why didn't the government listen to their panel of experts regarding the drug driving limit for THC? Do you actually have any viewpoints that are conducive to finding out more, or do you just want to be hysterical and miss the point?
Take a moment to actually read what is in front of your eyes, for goodness sake.
Have you ever had an alcoholic drink? If so, would you support not being allowed to drive for 7 days after a single unit of alcohol? Or you know, perhaps more studies are needed, and medical/scientific recommendations could be implemented by our government, reducing the harms for everyone?
Re: covid inquiry. What I've taken from it so far is that: this Conservative government are clueless, arrogant and entitled beyond belief, and willingly let people come to harm and die in order to keep the economy going. What has actually happened has been needless deaths, longer term health harms (repeated infections; long covid etc). The government dithered so badly, Eat Out To Help Out scheme caused a 17% spike in infections, leading to a longer and more restrictive second lockdown. And still out economy struggles.
Do yourself a favour and read as much as you can around the current drug laws and books by Professor David Nutt, Dr Grinspoon 'Seeing Through The Smoke' etc. Enlightening and educational books.
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Re: covid inquiry. What I've taken from it so far is that: this Conservative government are clueless, arrogant and entitled beyond belief, and willingly let people come to harm and die in order to keep the economy going. What has actually happened has been needless deaths, longer term health harms (repeated infections; long covid etc). The government dithered so badly, Eat Out To Help Out scheme caused a 17% spike in infections, leading to a longer and more restrictive second lockdown. And still out economy struggles.
Agreed with everything you posted about drugs and alcohol, but not the load of guff above.All the real harm was done from the actual lockdowns, to health, and the economy. We should not have been "locked down" at all. And I'm f
ked if they'll ever get me to comply again.siremoon said:
Not content with wanting to possess an illegal substance, you want to be allowed to drive with more of it in your system because you assert it doesn't impair people as much as the present limit suggests. I think we can all agree that we definitely need more people driving with higher levels of illegal substances in their system. That's guaranteed to make the roads safer.
Just to pick you up on this point. In my previous reply, I responded but I want to add another point.I'm not advocating for having MORE of it in my system - it is already there - and if I were not prescribed it and used it recreationally, it would still be there in my blood, at the same concentrations. The point I'm making is, by having the current limit set to 2ug per litre instead of 5ug per litre, the Police will drug wipe then do a blood test back at the station, and therefore they will arrest vastly more people who have it in their system but are not impaired. Having it in your system does NOT mean you are impaired, unless concentration levels are massively high - but even then, tolerance, physical body build and other factors come in to play.
But if you do have it in your system and are not prescribed it, you will almost certainly lose your licence, most likely lose your job and your ability to live with dignity - all for the sake of an unnecessary and inadvisably low blood-THC limit.
Let me spell it out for you.
Scenario 1: Current limit: 2ug per litre. You vaporised cannabis at 7pm Friday night. Impairment returns to baseline approximately 4-6 hours after consumption - AS PER STUDIES. Saturday morning at 10am you're driving to your local supermarket, driving perfectly reasonably and sensibly, you get pulled over for a random stop and get drug wiped. It detects THC in your system and you're taken to the station for a blood test. Blood test shows 3ug per litre. Officer records that you are NOT impaired in any way, but you have failed the road side drug wipe. You're now losing your licence, possibly your job, ending up in court. You now have a criminal record.
Scenario 2: blood-THC levels are set at 5ug per litre. You vaporised cannabis at 7pm Friday night. Impairment returns to baseline approximately 4-6 hours after consumption - AS PER STUDIES. Saturday morning at 10am you're driving to your local supermarket, driving perfectly reasonably and sensibly, you get pulled over for a random stop and get drug wiped. It detects THC in your system and you're taken to the station for a blood test. Blood test shows 3ug per litre. Officer records that you are NOT impaired in any way and you have a blood-THC level below the threshold for drug driving. You're now free to go about your lawful business, with no marker on your criminal record, no job loss, and you still have you licence.
What is the difference between those two scenarios? Both have the same blood-THC levels. Both have zero impairment as noted by a Police officer. Scenario 1 is the current limit which went AGAINST the advisory panel. Scenario 2 is where we'd be with the 5ug per litre limit as per the advisory panel. Both scenarios have the same level of THC in blood. Both have zero impairment 15 hours post-consumption.
The difference? One is a sensible and pragmatic solution that suits most consumers who don't drive under the influence, nor in a dangerous manner. The other is our current situation.
Please share your thoughts.
Griffith4ever said:
Agreed with everything you posted about drugs and alcohol, but not the load of guff above.
All the real harm was done from the actual lockdowns, to health, and the economy. We should not have been "locked down" at all. And I'm fked if they'll ever get me to comply again.
I understand your viewpoint, but my point was that the government could have done far more - mandating proper fitted masks like FFP2 and FFP3 respirators when in confined spaces with minimal airflow indoors; air purification with HEPA filters; not encouraging people to mix via EOTHO scheme; PPE up to standard from firms that specialise in it and not Michelle Mone and other cronies whom set up companies, got given PPE contracts via the PPE Lane which produced below-standard protecting equipment, thus endangering numerous lives in health care settings and care homes; also, the government could have actually followed their OWN rules - instead of treating the rest of us with contempt.All the real harm was done from the actual lockdowns, to health, and the economy. We should not have been "locked down" at all. And I'm f
ked if they'll ever get me to comply again.As individuals we all needed to take responsibility by washing hands frequently; wearing properly fitting FFP2 or FFP3 respirator masks in confined spaces and allowing good airflow wherever possible with ventilation.
If everyone did their bit - government and individuals - we would have had vastly reduced lockdowna, both in terms of severity of restrictions and the length of the lockdowns. The longer lockdowns went on the greater the cumulative effect it had on mental and physical health of many.
Hell, if we all wore FFP2 and FFP3 masks, we could probably have not needed to lock down at all. And we wouldn't have spent billions on s
t PPE, extended furlough etc. Our government doesn't give a toss about us now and it certainly didn't then.NS66 said:
cashmax said:
Brink said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?Do you really think that anyone who has smoked it is in a constant state of drug induced comatose, having lost all normal reasoning power?
Why cashmax and others on here condone all this I have no idea. Stick to your "ivory tower" as some would say by doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is often harder than succumbing to pressure from others, expect to be mocked for doing the right thing.
I find it amusing that people in this thread can categorically state that no one in their friendship circle have smoked, they will have but likely just aren't comfortable with disclosing it.
Setting the limits too low at a punitive level doesn't make it safer on the roads as people will just throw caution to the wind as they know they will register over so may as well go all in, an example of this can be seen with drink drive fatalities in Scotland since they lowered the levels (drink drive fatalities have doubled within the past decade).
Setting the limits too low at a punitive level doesn't make it safer on the roads as people will just throw caution to the wind as they know they will register over so may as well go all in, an example of this can be seen with drink drive fatalities in Scotland since they lowered the levels (drink drive fatalities have doubled within the past decade).
Scarletpimpofnel said:
I'm with you, throughout my life I have avoided people who take drugs. They're a liability on the road and in the workplace, as well as it being illegal, and the root of much criminality and suffering across the world.
Why cashmax and others on here condone all this I have no idea. Stick to your "ivory tower" as some would say by doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is often harder than succumbing to pressure from others, expect to be mocked for doing the right thing.
It is illegal, the root of much criminality and suffering because of prohibition. Prohibition feeds the illegal markets, usually run by OCG/cartels who have no motive other than money. No amount of money is ever enough. It's about always making more money, grabbing more territory and gaining such power that they can continue to make more money, causing more suffering along the way.Why cashmax and others on here condone all this I have no idea. Stick to your "ivory tower" as some would say by doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is often harder than succumbing to pressure from others, expect to be mocked for doing the right thing.
Britain had less than 400 heroin addicts in the 1960s when it was available on prescription. Many of these addicts were like you and I - worked full-time jobs, maintained a house and we're not causing harm to anyone. Then the UK got strong armed by the US to make it illegal to prescribe, harassed and struck off prescribing doctors. All that did was drive these drug dependant people to do was go and find it elsewhere/make their own - without the regulations, strength was unknown, needles were not clean and the cost of it increased via the black market - causing many thousands to die in the first decade of prohibition.
People will never stop taking drugs - so why not make the production and supply uncontaminated and clean? Safe needle exchanges, consumption rooms supervised by specialist doctors and nurses and you see very, very few deaths.
A Scandinavian country (I forget where) ran a pilot whereby they gave housing and a monthly stipend to addicts in exchange for consuming only the drugs they were given at the consumption rooms, and had to undergo therapy - within 12 months 85% of these people were completely off drugs, living independently and working full time jobs.
Once you stop treating people who take drugs like human beings because you believe their choice to take drugs is a moral failing, you have failed them. Both as an individual and as a society.
Unless you are totally squeaky clean - have never touched caffeine, alcohol nor tobacco/nicotine, then you are simply a hypocrite.
Would you drink water if you didn't know the origins of it? If it had zero regulations around filtration and purification?
Would you drink alcohol if you didn't know how it was distilled? If it had no regulation for strength and contaminants? I think not as you'd be dead very quickly.
All prohibition does is drive the potency of drugs ever higher while increasing the direct harms to individuals - whether that's cartel violence, mental and physical health - those in the illegal trade don't give a toss as it's all about more profit for them.
Try and understand that cannabis can be both a force for good (medicinal properties - muscle relaxant; anti-spasm; neurological pain like sciatica; cluster headaches and migraines; insomnia; and quite frankly, a lovely, peaceful way to find down after a long and tiring day). But also it can have many negatives too - just like all drugs. But overall, once over 25yo, it has far fewer negative effects ok brain development and had been shown to have very positive effects on brains in over 60s.
Many drugs are good and bad depending on dosage, psychological state of the individual when taking them, as well as what is actually in said drugs.
Drugs aren't going anywhere. Usage is more prevalent than ever, and increasing year on year. So why not make it as safe as possible to use your drug of choice? Otherwise we may as well ban every single psychoactive drive including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, strip away all regulations and if you die from alcohol poisoning, then quite frankly that was YOUR choice to consume it. Sounds absurd when applied to the three legal drugs mentioned vs many of the viewpoints posted on here, regarding usage of cannabis and other illegal drugs.
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
I understand your viewpoint, but my point was that the government could have done far more - mandating proper fitted masks like FFP2 and FFP3 respirators when in confined spaces with minimal airflow indoors; air purification with HEPA filters; not encouraging people to mix via EOTHO scheme; PPE up to standard from firms that specialise in it and not Michelle Mone and other cronies whom set up companies, got given PPE contracts via the PPE Lane which produced below-standard protecting equipment, thus endangering numerous lives in health care settings and care homes; also, the government could have actually followed their OWN rules - instead of treating the rest of us with contempt.
As individuals we all needed to take responsibility by washing hands frequently; wearing properly fitting FFP2 or FFP3 respirator masks in confined spaces and allowing good airflow wherever possible with ventilation.
If everyone did their bit - government and individuals - we would have had vastly reduced lockdowna, both in terms of severity of restrictions and the length of the lockdowns. The longer lockdowns went on the greater the cumulative effect it had on mental and physical health of many.
Hell, if we all wore FFP2 and FFP3 masks, we could probably have not needed to lock down at all. And we wouldn't have spent billions on st PPE, extended furlough etc. Our government doesn't give a toss about us now and it certainly didn't then.
There was NO stopping covid. Bar walking around in ET style suits. No masks (which people put below their noses) . It's all bAs individuals we all needed to take responsibility by washing hands frequently; wearing properly fitting FFP2 or FFP3 respirator masks in confined spaces and allowing good airflow wherever possible with ventilation.
If everyone did their bit - government and individuals - we would have had vastly reduced lockdowna, both in terms of severity of restrictions and the length of the lockdowns. The longer lockdowns went on the greater the cumulative effect it had on mental and physical health of many.
Hell, if we all wore FFP2 and FFP3 masks, we could probably have not needed to lock down at all. And we wouldn't have spent billions on s
t PPE, extended furlough etc. Our government doesn't give a toss about us now and it certainly didn't then.ks. Sweden pretty much proves it. Less deaths and a less damaged economy. You will never get the general population to "properly wear FFP3 masks". You are delusional if you think so.
We are never going to agree on this. You've read a load of nonsense tbf. You can stop any disease spreading if you cease living your life, and it's not worth that unless it's Ebola.
Scarletpimpofnel said:
NS66 said:
cashmax said:
Brink said:
FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:
Do pot-heads take any notice of evidence? Can they, once stoned out of their noggin?Do you really think that anyone who has smoked it is in a constant state of drug induced comatose, having lost all normal reasoning power?
Why cashmax and others on here condone all this I have no idea. Stick to your "ivory tower" as some would say by doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is often harder than succumbing to pressure from others, expect to be mocked for doing the right thing.
As for condoning it - At no point did I do that, I have never suggested that being under the influence of drink or drugs whilst driving was acceptable in anyway. In fact quite the opposite, I was looking for guidance on exactly how to AVOID this situation.
I think it's very likely that you do associate with people who use drugs, it's just that because they are not a dribbling wreck all the time and able to function normally, perhaps even more successfully that yourself, you just don't realise it.
Griffith4ever said:
There was NO stopping covid. Bar walking around in ET style suits. No masks (which people put below their noses) . It's all bks. Sweden pretty much proves it. Less deaths and a less damaged economy.
You will never get the general population to "properly wear FFP3 masks". You are delusional if you think so.
We are never going to agree on this. You've read a load of nonsense tbf. You can stop any disease spreading if you cease living your life, and it's not worth that unless it's Ebola.
I mean, of course wearing masks below your chin negates the whole point. And they were always cloth masks or surgical masks - nowhere near good enough filtration to stop virus particles. Like I said, FFP2 and FFP3 masks when correctly fitted are exceptionally good at preventing catching and spreading of virus particles. Good air filtration is key but is barely acknowledged, let alone acted upon.ks. Sweden pretty much proves it. Less deaths and a less damaged economy. You will never get the general population to "properly wear FFP3 masks". You are delusional if you think so.
We are never going to agree on this. You've read a load of nonsense tbf. You can stop any disease spreading if you cease living your life, and it's not worth that unless it's Ebola.
Like I said - if everybody worked together and had a bit more empathy towards those who were/are most vulnerable in society, would could almost certainly have mitigated a huge chunk of the harms caused to the UK on a financial level, on a personal physical and mental health level, as well as the level of trust between government and the public.
I concur that we probably won't agree on this topic.
cashmax said:
Quite honestly shocked at this attitude. I tried cannabis (and other drugs) when I was younger and it just didn't do it for me, I haven't bothered again since, thats probably getting on for 30 years ago now. But, I don't judge people who do you use it or have used it - I don't avoid watching Morgan Freeman films because he uses cannabis, I don't assume that barack Obama wasn't fit to be POTUS because he used and I don't spend my time wondering how Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Steve Jobs managed to build successful business empires whilst being "not on this planet or a liability in the workplace" because they were all "pot heads"
As for condoning it - At no point did I do that, I have never suggested that being under the influence of drink or drugs whilst driving was acceptable in anyway. In fact quite the opposite, I was looking for guidance on exactly how to AVOID this situation.
I think it's very likely that you do associate with people who use drugs, it's just that because they are not a dribbling wreck all the time and able to function normally, perhaps even more successfully that yourself, you just don't realise it.
OP, you've got a very sensible outlook and should be commended for it.As for condoning it - At no point did I do that, I have never suggested that being under the influence of drink or drugs whilst driving was acceptable in anyway. In fact quite the opposite, I was looking for guidance on exactly how to AVOID this situation.
I think it's very likely that you do associate with people who use drugs, it's just that because they are not a dribbling wreck all the time and able to function normally, perhaps even more successfully that yourself, you just don't realise it.
I may have missed a few replies on previous pages - can you shed any light on how your chats with your son went regarding his usage? Have you or he purchased any books on cannabis so that a better picture and awareness can be gleened about the drug, and better informed decisions can take place?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff